KAREN B. MOLZEN, Chief Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 16), filed October 25, 2016. Almost three weeks earlier on October 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice because he had not met his burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. Doc. 19; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action"); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) ("[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims."). Plaintiff has taken up the Court on the opportunity to file another amended complaint to set forth allegations sufficient to show that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. 19.
Insofar as Plaintiff appears to seek an appeal the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, Plaintiff has now met that burden of showing jurisdiction over that claim. Specifically, the Social Security Act permits judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner only if the decision is a final decision made after a hearing. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To have a final decision after hearing, a claimant must have exhausted his administrative remedies by completing each step of the administrative review process: (i) an initial determination; (ii) a reconsideration of the initial determination; (iii) a hearing by an administrative law judge; and (iv) a review by the Appeals Council. See Griffin v. Astrue, 300 F. App'x 615, 616-617 (10
The Court remains concerned, however, that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently comply with his obligation to sufficiently update an address for delivery of mail such that notice can be provided and service accomplished. As previously noted, two documents that the Court mailed to Plaintiff were returned to the Court marked "Return to Sender, Attempted — Not Know, Unable to Forward" and "Return to Sender, No Such Number, Unable to Forward." See Doc. 13 and 18, filed August 15 and October 3, 2016.
Again, "[a]ll attorneys of record and parties appearing pro se have a continuing duty to notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change in their firm name, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, or electronic addresses." D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6. Plaintiff asserts that he is homeless, so it understandably may be difficult for him to meet this obligation. But in paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states, "Not to Worry, my mail is received under the care of; Danny Whatley, Retired Supervisor of Deputy Marshals, they don't fail." The Court is at a loss how the United States Postal Service can accomplish delivery to such an address, however.
Wherefore,